All Activity

The number of people who misunderstand "theory" and "truth" are absolutely astounding.

yes, the process reduces, but does not eliminate bias. its the individuals t not the method. studying it will help identify and control it, but it remains essentially a human affair. my main bone of contention is that science wishes to study only what is measurable (fair enough) and then inadvertently or otherwise, a determination is made on the predominant worldview without consideration for the subjective aspect of reality. This to me is the main bias in science. 1- agree that I have not supported other disciplines 2- yes, it is acceptable to not have an answer 3- those that have not moved on, seem to not be able to go beyond computer analogies. This observation comes from those that have moved on will continue tomorrow

Incidentally, (I guess I'm late to the party but) I recently learned there's a name for this sort of question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem "The XY problem is a communication problem encountered in help desk, technical support, software engineering, or customer service situations where the question is about an end user's attempted solution (X) rather than the root problem itself (Y or Why?)." What problem are you trying to solve?

@grayson, right?

I’ve changed my mind. Please do NOT send me whatever it is.

@Luc Turpin So I haven't read everything that is in this post, just first and last pages but a thought has occurred to me; the scientific method as it is, is designed to reduce (not eliminate) bias as much as is humanly possible, but when you see something that makes you think something is biased, is it the method or the individuals themselves? I guess I'm just wondering if it has occurred to you that scientific research into human biases is all that needs to happen for us to understand how it works in all areas humans are active in? Right now I'm just trying to figure out what your main claims really are as I'm struggling to understand. Keep in mind this is a split thread so it might be good for you to think about what the OP would have been if you'd opened up the discussion on your terms.

An issue with a loop is that it needs to match up with the wavelength of the signal you are trying to detect. A few cm should be fine for signals of order of a GHz or so (30 GHz has a wavelength of 1 cm) but as the mismatch grows the detector efficiency goes down.

Except you haven’t supported this idea for many disciplines. Not knowing the answer is an acceptable position in science. And they only discuss the brain with computer analogies? Even as they say it doesn’t work like a computer? You said you believed they did, so one infers that you have reasons for this belief. I don’t believe this, and further I believe they don’t, because intelligent, rational people likely understand that there is personal preference, which is subjective. If you contend something is true, you must have evidence which leads to that position. If people reject science then science is not imposing a view. At best, it is suggesting a view. But it’s not even doing that. It’s setting up the boundary of what it can investigate. What impact can this possibly have on identifying a rock or mineral? This is your contention, so you own the burden of proof. People had ideas and thoughts long before they had any clue whatsoever about how the mind worked, and have had mistaken ideas about how it works, so this doesn’t seem to be an impediment outside of this very narrow slice of science. If we overturn every mainstream idea about the brain tomorrow, will that somehow make E=mc^2 invalid?

I understand why you think every action is taken due to instinct or experience, but do you have any evidence that this is the case?

I think I will search for what Swansont says about "loop" detector. My problem is that my "aperture area" is very small, say 2x2cm view! I have little space to work with. I know of mini solar cells, but they dont detect IR waves.

"Failure of GR does not necessitate failure of geometry" implies geometry without GR. Why would I try to show an example of GR without geometry?

I'll have a try if you PM me.

I have a video where there is about 20 seconds of conversation in English that I don't understand. I really want to know what they say. I can read English without much problem but my listening ability is very bad. English isn't my first language. You just listen to it and type out the exact wording for me in text. That's all I need, then I can understand. You don't need to explain it to me or make any subtitles files for me. I am NOT a youtuber or clip worker, I can do something for you as a return. You don't need to download the video. I have a link. Please send me a private message here if you can help, and let me know what I can do for you as a return. Thanks a lot.

Hello. I came from another account, but I forgot my username and password, and I changed to another Gmail since. I want to say that this is philosophy, so I put it in philosophy. Anyways, I have a distinguished opinion on the state of awareness (I will say awareness instead of consciousness because I type so fast that I mess up words and this is one of those words that is really easy to mess up). Awareness is a man-made construct. My thought is that the human brain is a machine, just like a steam engine or computer, except it is really complex. We don't know everything about it, but what we do know is that it is a physical object that follows physical properties. Now, some people would start talking about their vision of what quantum mechanics is and say that the brain operates on quantum effects. I used to think this would explain a lot of things, but I am thinking that it probably does not explain anything. When you think of it, there are millions of other explanations for awareness, and I am going to tell you my favorite one. Awareness is not a thing, and we actually don't have a choice on what we do. Let me explain this by using as much science as I can. Everything you do is based on either instinct or experience, nature or nurture. Why did you click on this post? You probably thought it was interesting. Why did you think it was interesting? You have probably had some kind of interaction with philosophy. Why did you have an interaction with philosophy. Because somebody told you that you would like it. Why did the person tell you that? They liked philosophy. Rinse and repeat a few times, we get all the way to Plato. Why did Plato like philosophy? I would take the time to read the Wikipedia article about him, but I am sure that he did it for some reason. That is experience, or nurture. We can explain some other things with nurture too. Why did you watch a scary movie last night? According to philosophy, humans are always looking for arousal, or stimulation. This is something you are born with. Why did you have nightmares about that scary movie? Fear is the strongest emotion according to human philosophy, meaning that you had strong emotions about the movie. Why were you scared of the movie. Whether the movie was about a giant monster or something like that, it triggered something in you to be afraid of. See what I am saying? Everything you did was because of instinct and experience, nature or nurture, all that stuff. Awareness is making choices for yourself, and do you think you were making the choices for yourself in the examples I showed you? No, it was either nature or nurture. This is why my opinion on awareness is that we don't have it at all. I am open to any criticism, and if you want to say anything, reply to this topic. Thank you very much for reading this.

GR defines space-time using its geometry; if there is any 'geometry', GR can use it to describe the space-time. For GR to not be applicable there has to be an absence of 'geometry', such as geometry becoming infinitely curved. Or can you show me an example of GR describing a space-time without 'geometry' ( does that even make sense ? ).

There are two types of time dilation; one due to motion relative to the observer, and the other due to depth in a gravitational potential well relative to the observer. In the first case we would notice time dilation of distant galaxies if they were moving away from us, but this effect would be non-linear ( as Mordred has explained ) since dilation increases asymptotically as c is approached. The Hubble expansion constant is, however, just that, constant, and mostly linear ( except for the slight up-tic due to accelerated expansion ). The second case would involve everything we observe, in all directions, being deeper in a gravity well than we are, in order to see a time dilated red shift; and that makes no sense due to the shell theorem. If you know of another type of time dilation, please educate us ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel#Discovery_of_infrared_radiation_in_sunlight Or we may be talking bolometers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolometer

Amen OP confused "theory of everything" with "everything I think is a theory".

Ah, so many 'wanna-be' Philosophers who think the universe resides in their mind, and its reasons and workings can be divined in their own heads. Good Philosophers temper their ideas with science and evidence based facts, before attempting to preach to us peons.

Yes, yes, this is bias. This is exactly what I was implying from the get go. Not only in neuroscience, but in many disciplines. The brain is definitely not a computer, But when discussing this with many neuroscientists, they do not even have a fallback position, only being able to discuss the matter in a computer analogy context. I said that they probably did not, not that they definitely did. I will investigate. And you are correct that it would have been unsubstantiated if I stated it as a fact. However, I remember a Dennet talk that definitely implied that there was next to nothingness after the objective reality. This is a contention of mine, which, you are correct again, does not make it true. I put the statement up there to clarify my position on the matter under discussion. Putting someone in a scanner is a way of peering into the subjective nature of mind. It does even if some reject it. Polarization does not only exist in politics. If I tell you that mind expresses itself through brain, then what does stop it from having an effect on more elementary matter? Yes, letting panpsychism through the backdoor. Not saying that it is, but one shall not preliminarily disqualify it. A minority but growing number of neuroscientists are now contemplating this. Why is this? Because of contrary findings to a mind from brain model. I have given many intriguing areas of investigations on this matter in some of my posts. And these mind from brain inconsistencies can be empirically studied. Do remember that Wilder Penfield started his career as a staunch mind from brain proponent, made numerous prodding of the brain with electrodes and ended his carrer saying that he was no longer sure of this. When prodding his patients with electrodes, something would happen, but patients always replied, “its not me doing this, you are” which was unexpected. One of many odd results of neuroscience studies. Not smart enough to understand this.

Or the weapons used by the android world at the end of Picard S01, that looked like flowers. Maybe they should call Swansont back to consult on the science, as all the new shows are destroying a dynasty, and I will not watch them. Except Strange New Worlds, which I like.

If you don't wish to build anything, there are, at least for infrared, 'off the shelf' cameras that can be purchased, which detect infrared sources and dispay them on a screen. I used to use one for detecting integrated circuits that had failed ( or were close to failing ) and heating up due to excessive power draw. Digital multimeters are available for $20 on eBay/Amazon for detecting low voltages and low currents on automotive or digital circuits. If you are going to test for voltage/current on your mains or higher, I suggest something with good protection, like a Fluke. The cost will be much higher, but there's nothing worse than testing a 300 or 600 volt circuit, and having your meter blow up in your hand and catch fire.

Well, to be fair, he did say and, true to his word, he didn't present any, and there is nothing to dispute or discuss on this discussion forum. Might as well close the thread, then.

10 microns is mid-IR, beyond the range of standard silicon photodiode; the energy is too low. You’d need a more exotic type, like HgCdTe, or possibly some other material. Hamamatsu is one company I recall that makes photodiodes. 10 microns is in the thermal IR range; bolometers are one detector that are used. Such as in IR cameras; I have one from FLIR that attaches to my iphone Pickup loops can be purchased; I recall being shown one that were marketed to people checking their microwave ovens for leakage. (the person showing it used it to detect pulses from a step motor in a watch)

Agreed that wiki article is lousy on the correct details. It's almost as if someone who wrote it was half guessing what's involved. It's likely that it was written by someone who knows how an engineer uses it but doesn't understand how it's used in particle physics.